From Reporting Scotland today:
Doctors and nurses raise concerns about the standard of their PPE.
Just a lie, just a scare story of tabloid accuracy.
And then it’s ‘some doctors and nurses’ say they should be provided with higher grade PPE.
And then, ‘Some Scottish staff have told the BBC..‘
Some eh? Two? No, just the one:
The nurse.
And the doctors? Two? Just the one:
She doesn’t actually say anything about face masks. Was she asked about them? What did she say? Not useful?
Who is Peters? Where does she work? She’s the one BBC Scotland used back in June 2020 to make a story out of the deaths not caused by the pigeon poo infections at the Queen Margaret University Hospital.
See that ‘Dr’ title? It’s like mine. She’s not a medic but a researcher.
So Doctors and nurses raise concerns? Is that all they have?
Talking-up Scotland 
The BBC in Scotland. Pathetic, fraudulent yellow journalism.
There used to be professional pride, public duty, standing above the fray and revealing all the facts for scrutiny. Bring the unvarnished news.
No longer. The narrative is fiction, the facts invented. The words weasel, the news managed with facts omitted/tales commissioned, to suit a predetermined outcome.
Pravda in Scotland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gavin
All you speak of is the strongest possible evidence that the
Demise and Collapse of the British State
Is beginning
LikeLike
Pravda means truth in Russian!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arayner1936
Re.Pravda and truth
Just like they initially handled the truth for
1. The Fatal explosion on board the Nuclear submarine Krusk
2. The explosion at the Chernobyle nuclear plant
LikeLike
This was my first impression when I heard of these “concerns” at lunchtime today. I knew it would be largely nonsense, like the vast majority of their yarns.
It really is so f****** frustrating that they are allowed to get away with this year after year, despite the many times they have been forced to “clarify” their reports.
It’s getting on for eight years now since Indyref1 was announced and they have been relentless with their lies and propaganda ever since.
LikeLiked by 2 people
THEPALALE
And we must be relentless upon Indy in ensuring that never ever again shall they
Be able to practice such propaganda.
Tis stacking shelves or cleaning toilets that
Should be the best employment that they are
Ever allowed to engage in
If not suitable to then let B**ger off
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not defending the BBC (perish the thought) but Dr Peters is a clinical microbiologist and therefore a medical doctor.
LikeLike
Are microbiologists the kind of doctors viewers think of when they hear ‘doctors and nurses?’
LikeLiked by 1 person
This appears to be a level of fake new that Trump would be proud of, and can only be aimed at encouraging Scots to believe we are incapable of self-government. Which kind of turns the state’s human rights obligations on it’s head, given the BBC is state licensed under royal charter. Though Brexit already show us the British state does not recognise Scots as possessing a legal right to legal rights.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/viral-misinformation-and-the-freedom-of-expression-part-i/
LikeLike
Given the state broadcaster’s propensity to misinform Scotland’s public, and ‘our’ Lord Advocate’s rather high-handed approach to due process and public accountability, I’m struggling to view Scotland as a democracy.
INCHOATE OFFENCES
https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cp48.htm#_Toc191112693
LikeLike
Oh dear – have you just ‘jumped the shark’? Might this be the apogee of your contributions? All down hill now?
LikeLike
You’ve already indicated you’ve no training in law, so you’re on shaking ground dissing someone who’s trained in critical legal theory. The above link points to the criminal law surrounding conspiracy, so I thought it relevant. Both to the BBC’s practice of misinforming Scotland, and the unraveling of the Lord Advocate’s position. So would you care to justify your position?
LikeLike
The statement “I’m struggling to view Scotland as a democracy” justifies my remark IMHO. Others readers will judge for themselves of course whether my remark – in criticism of what HAS BEEN WRITTEN, even if by someone trained in critical legal theory – is reasonable or not.
A sense of proportion is not always adhered to by those trained in critical legal theory – or so it would appear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the interests of clarity, a training in law provides the practitioner with an “internal” view of the law. Which is considered rational and just. A training in critical legal theory provides the practitioner with an “external” view of the law, so they are able to identify any need to improve jurisprudence and legal practice.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to be hostile, but I’m not prepared to have my insight and opinion traduced simply because I lack processional status. Office bearers in the BBC have a duty of care, just as much as legal officers in government. Though it is hard to see this in action if you live in Scotland, where the Common law is subourdinated to political expediency (see Brexit).
Click to access Lusty-Revival-of-the-Common-Law-Offence-of-Misconduct-in-Public-Office-2014-38-Crim-LJ-337.pdf
LikeLike
I long for the day when a SNP leader publicly denounces the britnat media liars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
stewartb
So all you have is snark? It’s just as well my training enables me to kick that into touch. Though I can’t do your learning for you. 😉
Judicial review and institutional balance
https://journals.openedition.org/revus/5180
LikeLike
I have said before Cameron, start your own blog! You flood comments here yes soem of it is relevant and very interesting, but quite frankly it’s also off putting to see every other comment about law, and theoretical and technical analysis. If you take offense when people challenge some things you say, maybe your own blog would be the answer then you could block them.
Oh and the UK, is definitely not a democracy that is very clear. the English government, the British Nationalist government, are intent on ensuring that Scotland’s democracy is crushed, and that the people of Scotland do not get a choice in who governs them. If they want to be wholly sovereign, they are called a ‘one party state’, and a’ banana republic’, oh and it’s flags, or ‘war’ to boot! Hell that is dangerous and very sinister language the BritNats are using against and about Scotland. Soon as they start to paint a country as rogue, and their government as somehow undemocratic and illegimate, it’s a good chance they would use force to overthrow the democratically elected government using force. The language they use is deliberate, it’s othering a whole country, it’s creaing a climate of suspicion and fuelling hatred, it is an attempt to legitimise a coup in all but name.
There are many things to discuss, not least in order to keep on track about the disgraceful and sinister tactics of the English government to deny Scotland the right to a fair and balanced election and referendum.
With 100% of the media in the UK being anti SNP, it’s an uphill battle to use a word the BritNats so love, a battle.
This site is excellent at batting the lies of the so called media into the park. Let’s not put people off with every other comment being a technical blurr with links most do not have time or the energy to read. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies for typos and repeats…oops. Is the saying batting out the park or in? Hmm.
LikeLike
Patronising and nasty towards Stewart, please stop.
LikeLike
I’ve already indicated I’m not in a position to blog. I just thought folks might appreciate insight that is informed through critical political science, critical legal theory, critical media studies, meta-ethics, and stuff. I’ve honestly got better things to be doing than justify myself to the less-informed, but I have to do something to defend my legal rights. As well as the rights of those who are not qualified to do so.
As far as patronizsing Stewart is concerned, I’m pretty sure he’s the one who was dissing me, with no apparent grounds to do so. He certainly hasn’t been able to justify his apparent hostility to my perspective, other than a belief in his own opinion. Or give an indication of his professional background, or any professional affiliation he might have. So pardon me while I continue to do as I’m trained to do, i.e. empower those marginalised by dubious media output and constitutional practice.
LikeLike
….empower those marginalised by dubious media output and DODGY constitutional practice.
Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality
Click to access a63.pdf
LikeLike
link
https://www(dot)corteidh(dot)or(dot)cr/tablas/a63(dot)pdf
LikeLike
Your comments will be completely ignored by me from now. Patronising people here reveals an arrogant, egotistical, jumped up distractor.
The EngGov is corrupt as hell. The EngGov are attempting to deny Scotland a democratic process and vote, they lie, scheme and scare monger, this site is here to counter that, thank goodness. We will continue to call out the dirty tactics and lies used by the BritNats to fuel the hatred towards Scotland and their tactics of othering the people of Scotland.
You are wasting your time posting links, seem to be onto comments quick as flash, and are insulting commenters, very telling.
If you can spend so much time commenting you can find the time to do your own blog. Far as I know, you can do a basic WP site for free. Get on it.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to patronise, but if I thought you were correct I’d probably take your concern seriously. I’ve already been subjected to intense othering on Wings, by those who are hostile towards scientifically, ethically, and legally trained opinion (see your man Ellis). So unless you want to deprive this blogs readers of insight that is geared towards social emancipation, can you not be a bit more tolerant?
LikeLike